Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-6 and 8-22 are pending. Claim 7 has been canceled. Note that, Applicant’s amendment and arguments filed December 16, 2025, have been entered.
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-19, in the reply filed on December 16, 2025, is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 16, 2025.
Objections/Rejections Withdrawn
The following objections/rejections as set forth in the Office action mailed 9/16/25 have been withdrawn:
The objection to claims 1-19 due to minor informalities has been withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-19 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/356507 in view of JP2008182221, has been withdrawn due to the filing of a terminal disclaimer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 13-19, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2008182221.
With respect to independent, instant claim 1, ‘221 teaches a cleaning agent for semiconductor substrates. See para. 1. ‘221 teaches a cleaning agent for semiconductor substrates containing 0.1 to 20% by weight of nonionic surfactants, 0.1 to 10% by weight of an anionic surfactant, and 70 to 99.5% by weight of water. See para. 7. In addition, the composition contains an alkaline compound, a chelating agent, other surfactants, dispersants, and other additives. See para. 42. Additionally, the composition may contain an alkaline component D such as quaternary ammonium salts, ammonia, alkanolamines, etc. See para. 43. Suitable quaternary ammonium salts include those represented by Formula (3) which are the same as recited by Formula (A) and Formula (B) of the instant claims. See paras. 43-48. Examples of alkanolamines include monoethanolamine, triethanolamine, N-methyldiethanolamine, etc. See paras. 51 and 52. Note that, the Examiner asserts that ‘221 (i.e., the prior art) teaches the equivalence of quaternary ammonium salts of Formula (A) and Formula (B) of the instant claims as alkaline components, and one of ordinary skill in the art clearly would have been motivated to use mixtures of quaternary ammonium salts of Formula (A) and Formula (B) since it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions, each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose…[T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art. In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP 2144.06.
The alkaline component is used in amounts from 0.1 to 10% by weight and the pH of the detergent is preferably from 9 to 14. By including compound D, the cleaning ability against particles or wax stains is further improved. See para. 43. Suitable chelating agents include EDTA, citric acid, glutamic acid, gluconic acid, etc., which may be used in amounts from 0.01 to 10% by weight. See paras. 50-58. Corrosion inhibitors including nitrogen-containing organic rust inhibitors such as benzotriazole, tolytriazole, etc., may be used in amounts from 0.001% to 10% by weight. See para. 81.
‘221 does not teach, with sufficient specificity, a composition containing a compound represented by Formula (A), Formula (B), and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Nonetheless it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to formulate a composition containing a compound represented by Formula (A), Formula (B), and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims, with a reasonable expectation of success and similar results with respect to other disclosed components, because the broad teachings of ‘221 suggest a composition containing a purine compound, a compound represented by Formula (A), Formula (B), and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2008182221as applied to claims 1-6, 8, 9, 13-19, 21, and 22 above, and further in view of Wu et al (US2019/0048292) or Wu et al (US2016/0300730).
‘221 is relied upon as set forth above. However, ‘221 does not teach the use a compound such purine compound (i.e., xanthine) in addition to the other requisite components of the composition as recited by the instant claims.
‘292 teaches a semiconductor processing composition for removing residues and/or contaminants from substrate containing Cu, barrier metal and low-k dielectric. The processing composition includes at least one quaternary base, at least one organic amine, at least one surface modifier, at least one antioxidant, at least one complexing agent and balance water. The processing composition provides a sufficient corrosion protection to Cu and metal barrier during process queue time without deteriorating reliability of electronic devices. See Abstract. The amount of quaternary base is in the range of about 0.001 wt % to 25 wt %, preferably from about 0.01 wt % to 15 wt % based on the total weight of the disclosed processing composition, and suitable quaternary bases include tris (2-hydroxyethyl) methyl ammonium hydroxide, etc. See para. 16. The amount of organic amine is from about 0.001% to 20% by weight, preferably from about 0.01% to 10% by weight, based on the total weight of the disclosed cleaning composition, and suitable organic amines include N-methyldiethanolamine, monoethanolamine, triethanolamine, etc. See para. 17. The amount of surface modifier is from about 0.001% to 12% by weight, preferably from about 0.01% to 8% by weight based on the total weight of the cleaning composition, and suitable surface modifiers include xanthine, purine, etc. Surface modifiers are used to replace the residues and/or contaminants remaining on the surface of the substrate, such as BTA derived from CMP slurry, while providing corrosion protection of copper interconnect. See para. 18. The amount of the complexing agent is from about 0.0001% to 8% by weight, preferably from about 0.0001% to 4% by weight, based on the total weight of the disclosed processing composition, and suitable complexing agents include citric acid, tartaric acid, oxalic acid, tributyl phosphate, dibutyl phosphate, ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), nitrilotriacetic acid, etc. See para. 20. The pH of the composition is from 8-14. See claim 2.
‘730 teaches post chemical mechanical planarization cleaning composition of semiconductor substrate for advanced electronics fabrication and packaging. It provides novel corrosion inhibition and quality upmost Cu-low K surfaces to the demanding reliability of nano device and Cu interconnection. See Abstract. Specifically, ‘730 teaches an alkaline aqueous solution in nature with a pH value in the range of 8.5-13.5. An organic base and balance water are used for pH adjustment. The organic bases include, but not limited to, quaternary amine, including tetrahexylammonium hydroxide (THAH), tetramethylammonium hydroxide (TMAH), tetrapropylammonium hydroxide (TPAH), tetrabutylammonium hydroxide (TBAH), tetraethylammonium hydroxide (TEAH), trimethylphenylammonium hydroxide (TMPAH), tris(2-hydroxyethyl)methylammonium hydroxide, etc., which may be used in amounts from 1 wt% to about 10 wt%. See para. 34. A chelate agent, which helps prevent re-deposition of removed metal onto the wafer or interposer surface through metal complexation, includes, but not limited to, N,N,N'-trimethyl-N'-(2-hydroxyethyl) ethylenediamine, N,N-dimethylethylenediamine, N,N'-dimethylethanolamine, isobutanolamine, isopropanolamine, 2-(diethylamino) ethanol, aminoethylethanolamine, N-methylaminoethanol. aminoethoxyethanol, dimethylaminoethoxyethanol, diethanolamine, N-methyldiethanolamine, monoethanolamine, triethanolamine, EDTA, CDTA, HIDA, and N-AEP, 1-methoxy-2-aminoethane, tetraethylenepentamine (TEPA), gluconic acid, tartaric acid, dimethyl glyoxime, formic acid, fumaric acid, glutamic acid, glutamine, glutaric acid, glyceric acid, glycerol, glycolic acid, etc., and combinations thereof. The chelating agents may be used in amounts from 1% to 10% by weight. See para. 35.
A corrosion inhibitor, which protects metal surface from attacking through oxidation and/or galvanic corrosion without compromising interference to atop dielectric deposition from CVD or PECVD, includes, but not limited to, purine compound, such as purine, guanine, hypoxanthine, xanthine, caffeine, uric acid, etc. Corrosion inhibitors are used in amounts up to 5% by weight. See para. 36.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a purine compound such as xanthine in the composition taught by ‘221, with a reasonable expectation of success, because ‘292 or ‘730 teach the use of a purine compound such as xanthine as a corrosion inhibitor in a similar composition and further, ‘221 teaches the use of nitrogen-containing corrosion inhibitors in general.
Claims 1-6, 8-19, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al (US2019/0048292) or Wu et al (US2016/0300730), both in view of JP2008182221.
‘292 or ‘730 are relied upon as set forth above. However, ‘292 or ‘730 do not teach the use of a quaternary ammonium compound of Formula (A) and Formula (B), or a composition containing a compound represented by Formula (A), Formula (B), and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
‘221 is relied upon as set forth above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a compound of Formula (A) and Formula (B) in the composition taught by ‘292 or ‘730, with a reasonable expectation of success, because ‘221 teaches teach the use of a compound of Formula (A) and Formula (B) in a similar composition, their equivalence to other quaternary ammonium hydroxides such as tetraethylammonium hydroxide, and that they help to reduce particle contaminants and further, ‘292 or ‘730 teach the use of quaternary ammonium compounds in general.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to formulate a composition containing a compound represented by Formula (A), Formula (B), and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by the instant claims, with a reasonable expectation of success and similar results with respect to other disclosed components, because the broad teachings ‘292 or ‘730 in view of ‘221 suggest a composition containing a compound represented by Formula (A), Formula (B), and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts s recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejection of the instant claims under 35 USC 103 using JP2008-182221, Applicant states that ‘221 is silent regarding the use of two compounds, i.e., the present compound (A) and the present compound (B), in combination and therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not arrive at the invention from JP '221.
In response, note that, as set forth above, ‘221 clearly teaches that the composition may contain an alkaline component D such as quaternary ammonium salts, ammonia, alkanolamines, etc., (See para. 43 of ‘221) and that suitable quaternary ammonium salts include those represented by Formula (3) which are the same as recited by Formula (A) and Formula (B) of the instant claims (See paras. 43-48 of ‘221). Note that, the Examiner asserts that ‘221 (i.e., the prior art) teaches the equivalence of quaternary ammonium salts of Formula (A) and Formula (B) of the instant claims as alkaline components, and one of ordinary skill in the art clearly would have been motivated to use mixtures of quaternary ammonium salts of Formula (A) and Formula (B) since it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions, each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose…[T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art. In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP 2144.06. Thus, the Examiner asserts that the teachings of ‘221 are sufficient to render the claimed invention obvious under 35 USC 103.
With respect to the rejection of the instant claims under 35 USC 103 Wu et al (US 2019/0048292) or Wu et al (US 2016/0300730), both in view of JP 2008-182221, Applicant states that ‘292 or ‘730 do not describe or suggest using the compound (A) and the compound (B) in combination. In response, note that, the Examiner asserts that ‘221 is analogous prior art relative to the claimed invention, ‘292, and ‘730 and that one of ordinary skill in the art clearly would have looked to the teachings of ‘221 to cure the deficiencies of ‘292 or ‘730. ‘221 is a secondary reference relied upon for its teaching of quaternary ammonium salts include those represented by Formula (3) which are the same as recited by Formula (A) and Formula (B) of the instant claims. The Examiner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art clearly would have been motivated to use a compound of Formula (A) and Formula (B) in the composition taught by ‘292 or ‘730, with a reasonable expectation of success, because ‘221 teaches the use of a compound of Formula (A) and Formula (B) in a similar composition, their equivalence to other quaternary ammonium hydroxides such as tetraethylammonium hydroxide, and that they help to reduce particle contaminants and further, ‘292 or ‘730 teach the use of quaternary ammonium compounds in general.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY R DEL COTTO whose telephone number is (571)272-1312. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-6:00pm, EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at (571) 272-2817. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GREGORY R DELCOTTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/G.R.D/March 23, 2026